Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Au Optronics Corp. et al

Filing 310


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION / This Order Relates to: No. M 07-1827 SI MDL. No. 1827 ORDER RE: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Best Buy v. AU Optronics Corp. et al, Case No. 10-CV-4572, Best Buy v. Toshiba Corp. et al Case No. 12-CV-4114 Costco Wholesale Corporation v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 11-CV-00058 Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-00117 Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-5452 Motorola Mobility Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 09-CV-5840 Target Corp, et. al., v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-4945 / 22 On March 15, 2013, the Court held a case management conference for the Track 1B and Track 2 23 cases. The Court informed the parties that the Track 1B trial date would be moved to July 22, 2013, and 24 instructed the parties to meet and confer about a revised pre-trial schedule based on this new trial date. 25 The parties have submitted a Supplemental Joint Case Management Conference Statement, which 26 provides a revised pre-trial schedule and raises new disputes in the scheduling. The Court addresses 27 these issues below. 28 1 1. Witness Lists, Exhibit Lists, Written Discovery Designations, and Deposition Designations 2 The parties acknowledge that, as discussed at the conference, the Court favors a staggered 3 approach with respect to the exchange of witness lists, exhibit lists, written discovery designations, and 4 deposition designations. The parties dispute, however, “the dates and structure of supplemental 5 disclosures and designations in the Track 1B cases.” Plaintiffs propose three exchanges: Plaintiffs’ 6 initial exchange, Defendants’ initial exchange, and Plaintiffs’ supplemental exchange.1 Defendants 7 agree with the dates for the first two rounds of Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule, but propose moving up the 8 date of Plaintiffs’ supplemental exchange and including a supplemental round of Defendant 9 designations. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 The Court agrees with Defendants that the staggered schedule should afford Plaintiffs and 11 Defendants each two full rounds of designations and instructs the parties to stipulate to a revised 12 schedule based on this conclusion. Issues remaining at the conclusion of these rounds may be addressed 13 at the pre-trial conference. 14 15 2. Best Buy v. Toshiba Schedule 16 Best Buy and Toshiba request an Order from the Court approving their proposed revised 17 schedule as to summary judgment and Daubert motions. The Court approves the schedule with one 18 exception: the hearing date will be moved to June 19, 2013, at 3:30 pm. 19 20 3. Other Pre-trial dates 21 As instructed by the Court at the conference, the parties provide a revised pre-trial schedule 22 based on a trial date of July 22, 2013. The Court approves the revised pre-trial schedule to which the 23 parties have stipulated, with one exception: the date for the Daubert hearing will be June 12, 2013, 24 at 9 am. 25 26 /// 27 1 28 In response to Defendants’ concern that Plaintiffs may designate new material in their supplemental designation, Plaintiffs assert that the issue can be raised at the pre-trial conference. 2 1 2 The Court directs the parties to file a stipulation providing a revised schedule of all pre-trial dates in accordance with this Order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 2, 2013 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?